The Evolution of Censorship



The Evolution of Censorship

Introduction

Censorship is the practice of restraining or con-trolling communication on the basis of content. Because of the strong tradition of First Amendment rights to freedom of expression, censorship has negative connotations in the United States, but in many other parts of the world it is an accepted part of life. Censorship may be formal, in which it is part of official government policy and enforced by police and the courts, or informal (Beauchamp, 2006), in which community organizations indicate their disapproval of objectionable content. There are four basic types of censorship: morals, military, political, and religious.

Does Censorship Violate Constitutional Constraints?

In the United States, the political right is most frequently associated with morals censorship, and in particular the suppression of sexual content in the arts. Conservatives have traditionally been very concerned about the possibility that such portrayals can erode the public morality, and as a result have rigorously supported legislation against obscenity and pornography. Conservatives have also objected to favorable portrayals of crime and disrespect for established authority on similar grounds of endangering good moral order.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” (Beauchamp, 2006). Yet, by 1789, Congress had passed the first Sedition Act, which prohibited all criticism of the government. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln rode roughshod over the First Amendment. During World War I, Congress passed the Second Sedition and Espionage Acts, which restricted criticism of the government or of the war effort and established criminal penalties for any speech or writing that was considered “disloyal” (Beauchamp, 2006).

From the beginning, the Supreme Court has been called upon to determine what speech should be censored and which is protected by the First Amendment. Normally, verbal expression known as “pure speech” is accorded the most protection. When pure speech involves action of some sort, it becomes known as “speech plus.” Some liberal absolutists, such as Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas, believed that when the First Amendment said Congress should make no law abridging freedom of speech it meant that “no law was no law.” For most justices, however, determining the line between protected speech and unprotected action has not always been easy. Early in the 20th century, during one of the most radical periods in U.S. history, the Supreme Court began to rely on tests to judge what was protected and what could be constitutionally censored.

In Schenck v. United States, Justice Holmes developed the Clear and Present Danger Test, which judged “whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Substantive evils were generally defined as trying to overthrow the government, inciting to riot, and destruction of life and property (Nan, 2003). On the basis of the Clear and Present Danger Test, convictions of most radicals were ...